·     I originally gave this glyph the nickname “JELLYFISH”.

·     It seems to be an independent glyph in the Mint Museum Bowl 1999.129.7 PSS (third glyph-block after yuk’ib) and K5619 (infixed in the top right of “UHMAN”).

·     It occurs as a component in tay / tayel.

·     A slightly similar element occurs in one variant of TE’. However:

o In “JELLYFISH” there are only two lobes on the bottom (with a long “bay” between the two lobes, stretching in from the outside to about halfway inside the “JELLYFISH”) whereas in the variant of TE’ there are three lobes on the bottom, with no “bay” (the place of the “bay” is taken by the middle lobe).

o There is never a “wood property marker” in “JELLYFISH”, whereas (unsurprisingly) it is always present in the variant of TE’.

·     It is given in TOK.p16.r5.c3 with no pronunciation.

·     It is given as 1715st in the Bonn Maya Dictionary Project, with no pronunciation.

·     Looper&Polyukhovych-SICV (2022) is a recent paper which proposes the reading ta for this glyph. This argument sounds very plausible, as the paper cites a newly photographed ceramic vessel (Mint Museum Bowl 1999.129.7), where ta pa u lu è ta paaj ul = “for sour/fermented atole” occurs in the PSS. It occurs in exactly the spot where ta <adjective> <food-substance> would be expected, in the highly formalized syntax of a PSS (e.g. in the formulaic phrase of the PSS: yuk’ib ta (yutal) ixiim te’el kakao = “(the) drinking vessel for (fruity) maize-tree-ish / maize-tree-type cacao”). [Sim:

o For this reason, the reading of ta for the “JELLYFISH” glyph seems to be quite acceptable.

o There are however still a number of issues which have to be sorted out regarding a glyph which has “JELLYFISH” in the centre, with a (slightly curved) “tail” of almost vertical touching dots (decreasing slightly in size from top to bottom) and with a hand grasping the “JELLYFISH” from below. This has had the reading TAY or TAYEL assigned to it in the past, but a reading of “JELLYFISH” as just ta casts some uncertainly on how the more complex glyph should be treated. Or perhaps the reading TAY/TAYEL can be retained, even if the “JELLYFISH” = ta reading is accepted, by viewing it as an initial phonetic complement of TAY/TAYEL.

·     If the ta reading is accepted, then “JELLYFISH” needs to lose its nickname and just move to the list of syllabograms as an additional variant. In fact, this entry can disappear completely.